Don, very good job, you were very clear and had good questions you wanted answered. I just hope you do not take the absence of solid answers here for a nonexistence of solid answers.

freedomforall, it was a bit more spotty, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to nerves. Personally I perform much better with time to refine my arguments through words. (yes I know, it Sooooooooo shows, you can end the eye rolls now)

But in the off chance those were the best arguments, some advice. It is not enough to say conservatives are against something for ideological reasons when engaging in a persuasive dialog. You need the rationale behind why conservatives are for or against something.

It is the difference between the arguments levied by a guy like Michael Medved vs a guy like Sean Hannity.

The first is far more persuasive because he dives into the why in his arguments, and the latter is mind numbingly painful to listen to because he often simply engages in the what he is against. The depth gap between the two is comical.

But again, these are the critiques of someone with time to think them out and write them out, a luxury not afforded to those who do this on the fly. But still, keep it in mind.